Acts 2:13

My Notes

What Does Acts 2:13 Mean?

"Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." Some in the Pentecost crowd MOCK: they dismiss the Spirit-filled speaking-in-tongues as DRUNKENNESS. The supernatural is explained as the chemical. The divine outpouring is reframed as excessive drinking. The 'new wine' (gleukos — sweet, unfermented or lightly fermented wine) accusation reduces the miraculous to the mundane.

The phrase "others mocking" (heteroi de diachleuazontes — but others sneering/mocking/scoffing) identifies a SECOND response alongside the amazement (verse 12): some were amazed and perplexed. Others MOCKED. The same event produced OPPOSITE reactions. The speaking-in-tongues that amazed some scoffed others. The identical miracle divided the audience. One sign. Two responses. The difference isn't in the sign. It's in the observer.

The "full of new wine" (gleukous memestōmenoi eisin — they are filled/saturated with sweet wine) is the DISMISSIVE explanation: the Spirit's filling is explained as WINE'S filling. The accusers need a NATURAL explanation for the SUPERNATURAL event. The speaking-in-tongues must be explained by something they can understand — drunkenness. The reduction is the dismissal. The 'natural' explanation eliminates the need to confront the 'supernatural' reality.

Reflection Questions

• 1.What move of God is being dismissed with a 'natural' explanation — and what's the real one?
• 2.What does the SAME event producing opposite responses (amazement vs. mockery) teach about the heart determining perception?
• 3.How does reducing the supernatural to the mundane ('they're drunk') function as a defense against having to respond?
• 4.What 'it's just 9 AM' logic and 'this is Joel's prophecy' theology would answer the mockers in your context?

Devotional

They're DRUNK. That's the explanation some people gave for Pentecost: the Spirit-filled apostles speaking in languages they never learned are dismissed as men full of new wine. The supernatural is explained as the chemical. The divine is reduced to the drunk.

The 'others mocking' identifies the SECOND audience: not everyone was amazed. The SAME event that produced wonder in some produced MOCKERY in others. The speaking-in-tongues — the same phenomenon, the same sound, the same moment — divided the crowd. Some said 'what does this mean?' (verse 12). Others said 'they're drunk.' The sign didn't determine the response. The HEART determined the response.

The 'full of new wine' is the REDUCTIONIST explanation: the mockers need the miracle to be EXPLAINABLE. They can't process a supernatural event. So they REDUCE it — it's wine, it's drunkenness, it's a known category they can handle. The reduction eliminates the need to respond to the divine. If it's just wine, you can shrug and walk away. If it's the Spirit of God, you must respond.

Peter's response (verse 15 — 'these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day') is both LOGICAL and THEOLOGICAL: the logic — it's 9 AM, too early for drunkenness. The theology — THIS is what Joel prophesied (verse 16). Peter doesn't just deny the accusation. He REPLACES the explanation. Not wine — Spirit. Not drunkenness — prophecy fulfilled. Not new wine — new covenant.

What move of God in your life is being dismissed as 'just drunk' — and what's the real explanation?

Commentary

Trusted original commentary from respected historical Bible scholars and theologians.

Cross References

Related passages throughout Scripture